WarAgainstError
Registered Member
A short article showing the erroneous nature of the foreighn word claim against the Quran and the subsequent allegation of contradiction/error which some on the net allege. Enjoy
Some Critics attack the Quran Because it has Foreign Words Within it
This claim is very embarrassing for the critic (hence it is becoming less common); they basically claim that the Quran claims to be in “pure Arabic” yet it contains foreign words.
The critic argues a straw man as he/she bases the argument against the Quran on a single and incorrect translation of a verse of the Quran. This claim of theirs humiliates them and even suggests outright deception as the critic does not divulge the crucial information which is the other translations of the Quran differ to the translation of the Quran they use for the verse in question. This suggests the critic cherry picks translations of the Quran in order to meet his/her agenda; not scholarly nor honest!
The critic cites a Quranic reference (16:103) and brings forward the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran as the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of this verse uses the word ‘pure’ to describe the Arabic of the Quran:
"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear." (16:103, Yusuf Ali translation)
However if we look at the Hilali/Khan translation it translates it differently (without pure):
16:103- And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad SAW)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'ân) is a clear Arabic tongue.
Interestingly enough both M Asad and Pickthall translate it similar to Hilali/Khan too and they do not use the word “pure” either as they just use the word “clear”. Hence all three famous translations disagree with the one the critic brings forward (Abdullah Yusuf Ali). Thus it appears as though the critic is trying to deceptively get mileage out of a wrongly translated verse of the Quran. Why did the critic refrain from telling his audience that there are other translations which do not use the word ‘pure’? The cynical answer would be because the critic’s claim would unravel before it even got off the ground. This is poor scholarship bordering on deception.
Just to further prove the verse should not be translated with the word “pure” we can look at the Arabic word used by the Quran to describe the Arabic tongue; it is “Mubeen”. We can refer to Ansar Al-Adl as he writes: To understand mubeen in a sense that negates words of foreign origin would be illogical in light of its context in other verses. For example, Allah says:
31:11 Such is the Creation of Allah. now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: nay, but the Transgressors are in manifest error.
The phrase that has been rendered here as 'manifest error' is dalaalim mubeen. Hence, it it obvious that mubeen refers to something clear, especially in the sense that it is obvious. [1]
All this shows the central premise of the critic’s claim iswrong as they argue a falsehood in the first place. Now we know the claim of the critics is incorrect as they used a faulty translation we may hear the critics revise their claims and thus suggest the Quran is not in Arabic then due to the foreign words.
This is a myopic argument. The critic claims the Quran is not in Arabic as it contains foreign words. The critic misses (or refuses to accept) the view which tells us the foreign words in the Quran were indeed incorporated into the Arab vernacular hence despite these words originating from foreign shores they became part of regular Arabic. Von Denffer devoted a short chapter on this issue and writes; ‘Some (among them Tabari and Baqillani) hold that all in the Quran is Arabic and that words of non-Arab origin the Arabs used and observed them and they became genuinely integrated in the Arabic language’ [2].
The same reference tells us that the non-Arabic proper names are non-Arabic such as Imran, Nuh etc. Though these proper names were foreign to Arabia they can still be used in the Arabic text (ie the Quran or Arabic newspaper articles) without any claim of the Arabic text not being in Arabic just like names such as Mohammed, Dietmar, Von Denffer, etc can and are indeed used in English text (ie this article or English newspaper articles) without anybody seriously claiming the English text is not in English.
As proper nouns such as names of people do not affect the overall Arabicity of a text..
In fairness and scholarly balance we should consider the other view; ‘that the Quran does contain words not used in the Arabic language’ [2].We realise this is immaterial as a text is judged by its overall language as opposed to a few foreign words it utilizes. To illustrate this I shall put forward a paragraph and the reader can decide what language I have wrote the paragraph in:
“Dietmar and Yusuf entered the laboratory an began their experimentation with industrial alcohol, the modus operandi they chose to use was already decided but they did get distracted as they peered out of the window in their chalet overlooking the circus; they could see camels, lions, chimpanzees and Asian, European and Arab tourists lining up to get into the circus. As they glanced to their right they saw a museum, mobile phone shops and automobiles ground to a halt due a few rickshaws and chariots breaking down. As they began their work they were interrupted by Doctor Kalrheinz who was wearing a stethoscope around his neck, he was clearly perturbed and explained he was not aux fait with the building layout and has got himself lost and he is now late for his clinic”.
I am sure the individual will say the text was written in English despite many foreign words being involved. The foreign words in the text are many which include; dietmar, Yusuf, alcohol, modus operandi, chalet, circus, camel etc. etc.. However we would still say the paragraph was in English as the foreign words utilized have been absorbed into the English language and because the paragraph is composed in English.
Thus the Quran is in Arabic for the same reason despite foreign words being included, which were incorporated into the Arabic language at the time; thus the foreign words were Arabized and became part of the Arabic language according to Tabari. If this is the case (which was believed to be the case by the great scholar Tabari) then the critic has no claim.
If they were not then the critic still has no claim as a text is always judged on its overall composure as opposed to a few foreign words; thus meaning the Quran is still in Arabic despite the foreign words. It must also be said proper nouns (names) which are foreign are immaterial as they are incorporated into a language immediately (as soon as they are used in textual or spoken forms of any language including Arabic). So if the critic brings up foreign names then he/she is following an ignorant line of argumentation.
So either way we see the critic is clutching at desperation out of his/her own prejudice against Islam rather than any real scholarly thought.
May Allah safeguard us from the deception and irrationality of the critics. Ameen
Please note: Wherever the there is an English translation of a Quranic passage in this article please realise it is not the actual Quran but a translation to the nearest meaning as the Quran is in Arabic and a translation is only a translation and not the verbatim Word of Allah.
Recommended readings on this issue:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBwise.html#5
http://www.questionsonislam.com/subpage.php?s=show_qna&id=571
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=522§ion=indepth&subsection=Glorious Quran
References
1. http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=522§ion=indepth&subsection=Glorious Quran
2. Ulum al Quran, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation 2003 pg 73
Some Critics attack the Quran Because it has Foreign Words Within it
This claim is very embarrassing for the critic (hence it is becoming less common); they basically claim that the Quran claims to be in “pure Arabic” yet it contains foreign words.
The critic argues a straw man as he/she bases the argument against the Quran on a single and incorrect translation of a verse of the Quran. This claim of theirs humiliates them and even suggests outright deception as the critic does not divulge the crucial information which is the other translations of the Quran differ to the translation of the Quran they use for the verse in question. This suggests the critic cherry picks translations of the Quran in order to meet his/her agenda; not scholarly nor honest!
The critic cites a Quranic reference (16:103) and brings forward the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran as the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of this verse uses the word ‘pure’ to describe the Arabic of the Quran:
"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear." (16:103, Yusuf Ali translation)
However if we look at the Hilali/Khan translation it translates it differently (without pure):
16:103- And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad SAW)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'ân) is a clear Arabic tongue.
Interestingly enough both M Asad and Pickthall translate it similar to Hilali/Khan too and they do not use the word “pure” either as they just use the word “clear”. Hence all three famous translations disagree with the one the critic brings forward (Abdullah Yusuf Ali). Thus it appears as though the critic is trying to deceptively get mileage out of a wrongly translated verse of the Quran. Why did the critic refrain from telling his audience that there are other translations which do not use the word ‘pure’? The cynical answer would be because the critic’s claim would unravel before it even got off the ground. This is poor scholarship bordering on deception.
Just to further prove the verse should not be translated with the word “pure” we can look at the Arabic word used by the Quran to describe the Arabic tongue; it is “Mubeen”. We can refer to Ansar Al-Adl as he writes: To understand mubeen in a sense that negates words of foreign origin would be illogical in light of its context in other verses. For example, Allah says:
31:11 Such is the Creation of Allah. now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: nay, but the Transgressors are in manifest error.
The phrase that has been rendered here as 'manifest error' is dalaalim mubeen. Hence, it it obvious that mubeen refers to something clear, especially in the sense that it is obvious. [1]
All this shows the central premise of the critic’s claim iswrong as they argue a falsehood in the first place. Now we know the claim of the critics is incorrect as they used a faulty translation we may hear the critics revise their claims and thus suggest the Quran is not in Arabic then due to the foreign words.
This is a myopic argument. The critic claims the Quran is not in Arabic as it contains foreign words. The critic misses (or refuses to accept) the view which tells us the foreign words in the Quran were indeed incorporated into the Arab vernacular hence despite these words originating from foreign shores they became part of regular Arabic. Von Denffer devoted a short chapter on this issue and writes; ‘Some (among them Tabari and Baqillani) hold that all in the Quran is Arabic and that words of non-Arab origin the Arabs used and observed them and they became genuinely integrated in the Arabic language’ [2].
The same reference tells us that the non-Arabic proper names are non-Arabic such as Imran, Nuh etc. Though these proper names were foreign to Arabia they can still be used in the Arabic text (ie the Quran or Arabic newspaper articles) without any claim of the Arabic text not being in Arabic just like names such as Mohammed, Dietmar, Von Denffer, etc can and are indeed used in English text (ie this article or English newspaper articles) without anybody seriously claiming the English text is not in English.
As proper nouns such as names of people do not affect the overall Arabicity of a text..
In fairness and scholarly balance we should consider the other view; ‘that the Quran does contain words not used in the Arabic language’ [2].We realise this is immaterial as a text is judged by its overall language as opposed to a few foreign words it utilizes. To illustrate this I shall put forward a paragraph and the reader can decide what language I have wrote the paragraph in:
“Dietmar and Yusuf entered the laboratory an began their experimentation with industrial alcohol, the modus operandi they chose to use was already decided but they did get distracted as they peered out of the window in their chalet overlooking the circus; they could see camels, lions, chimpanzees and Asian, European and Arab tourists lining up to get into the circus. As they glanced to their right they saw a museum, mobile phone shops and automobiles ground to a halt due a few rickshaws and chariots breaking down. As they began their work they were interrupted by Doctor Kalrheinz who was wearing a stethoscope around his neck, he was clearly perturbed and explained he was not aux fait with the building layout and has got himself lost and he is now late for his clinic”.
I am sure the individual will say the text was written in English despite many foreign words being involved. The foreign words in the text are many which include; dietmar, Yusuf, alcohol, modus operandi, chalet, circus, camel etc. etc.. However we would still say the paragraph was in English as the foreign words utilized have been absorbed into the English language and because the paragraph is composed in English.
Thus the Quran is in Arabic for the same reason despite foreign words being included, which were incorporated into the Arabic language at the time; thus the foreign words were Arabized and became part of the Arabic language according to Tabari. If this is the case (which was believed to be the case by the great scholar Tabari) then the critic has no claim.
If they were not then the critic still has no claim as a text is always judged on its overall composure as opposed to a few foreign words; thus meaning the Quran is still in Arabic despite the foreign words. It must also be said proper nouns (names) which are foreign are immaterial as they are incorporated into a language immediately (as soon as they are used in textual or spoken forms of any language including Arabic). So if the critic brings up foreign names then he/she is following an ignorant line of argumentation.
So either way we see the critic is clutching at desperation out of his/her own prejudice against Islam rather than any real scholarly thought.
May Allah safeguard us from the deception and irrationality of the critics. Ameen
Please note: Wherever the there is an English translation of a Quranic passage in this article please realise it is not the actual Quran but a translation to the nearest meaning as the Quran is in Arabic and a translation is only a translation and not the verbatim Word of Allah.
Recommended readings on this issue:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBwise.html#5
http://www.questionsonislam.com/subpage.php?s=show_qna&id=571
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=522§ion=indepth&subsection=Glorious Quran
References
1. http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=522§ion=indepth&subsection=Glorious Quran
2. Ulum al Quran, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation 2003 pg 73
